Chennai Court February 2008 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Sinetech Vs. the Commercial Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-06-2008
Reported in: (2008)15VST398(Mad)
ORDERK. Chandru, J. 1. Heard the arguments of Mr. A.R. Jayashankar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Ganesan, learned Government Advocate representing the respondent and perused the records.2. In this petition, the petitioner challenges the notice dated 13.7.2007 for the revised assessment issued under Section 16 of the Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 [for short, 'TNGST Act'] .3. It was contended by Mr. A.R. Jayashankar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, that for the assessment year 2004-2005, the petitioner had exercised the option of paying the tax at compounding rate as required under Section 7C of the TNGST Act by filing the return in Form A-1 and once compounding option was accepted by the Department, a compounding order was also passed to that effect. Therefore, the transactions of the petitioner will not come under the category of 'works contract' thereby the respondent to assume jurisdiction to revise the assessment and levy tax on the ...
Anjala @ Kamatchi W/O Gopal and Gopal S/O Chinnusamy Vs. State Represe ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ1885
D. Murugesan, J.1. The appellants are A-1 and A-2 in S.C. No. 65 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Namakkal. They were found guilty for the offence 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. They were also convicted for the offence under Section 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. Hence they are before this Court by way of the present appeal. (The appellants herein after referred to as 'accused')2. The accused were put on trial on the following facts:a) Both the accused are wife and husband. The accused have two female children already. On 13.8.2001 A1 gave birth a third female child. As the accused were not in a poison to maintain the family, particularly already they had two ...
The Executive Engineer (Distribution), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: AIR2008Mad148; (2008)2MLJ812
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. Since in all these matters, a common question of law is involved, ail these matters are taken up for common hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The common facts, in a nutshell, in all these matters, are that the sole respondent or the first respondent, as the case may be, in the above cases (who are hereinafter referred to as the 'consumers', for the sake of convenience) are accused of committing electricity theft and accordingly, the Electricity Department had issued show-cause notices to them. In some cases, the consumers, have earlier approached this Court on the ground that the enquiry was conducted by the concerned Officer without serving the show-cause notices to them and this Court, has directed the authorities that the consumers should be given time to reply to the show-cause notice and if the authorities are not satisfied, with the reply, an enquiry has to be conducted on a different date, after giving seven days notice and then ...
K.S. Kamakshi Chetty, Vs. the Commissioner, Aruppukottai Municipality ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ184
ORDERP. Jyothimani, J.1. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 09.01.2003, by which the representation of the petitioners to allot the 'open space', came to be rejected with direction to take steps to execute gift deed in favour of the Municipality from the owners.2. The petitioners are stated to be the joint owners of the property comprised in Old Survey No. 589 (Part), present T.S. No. 132 of Ward D, Block No. 30 of Aruppukottai Town. The first and second petitioners have obtained their undivided 1/3rd share each under the sale deed dated 27.18.1980 and 16.02.1983 respectively and the third and fourth respondents got the remaining undivided one third share each by succession. As stated by the petitioners, the said lands along with the other adjacent lands were covered by North-East Extension Town Planning Scheme Part II, Aruppukottai, sanctioned in G.O.Ms.No.434 LA dated 02.03.1969 under Section 14(3) of the Madras Town Planning Act, 1920 (Mad...
Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Its Secretary, Home Departme ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: 2008CriLJ2280; (2008)3MLJ167
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.1. The appellant herein has filed W.P. No. 22366 of 1993 graying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing die respondents to take appropriate action against the culprits involved in her husband Natarajan Chettiar's custodial death and jointly or severally to pay fair and adequate damages and compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the family of the deceased.2. The case of the petitioner is that her husband Natarajan Chettiar was a pawn broker dealing with buying and selling of artificial diamonds and jewels on commission basis and the month of August, 1993, one Kullah Achary alias Subramani, who was also in the same business, had given some jewels to her husband for selling and on 11.9.1993, the 5th respondent with a police party came to Vaniyambadi and enquired her husband and others about the jewels and only at that point of time, her husband came to know that the jewels were stolen ones; that .he 5th respondent required her husband and others to come with him to Tiruvannama...
R. Kumar and R.K. Construction Rep. by Its Managing Partner Vs. the Ch ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ173
ORDERV. Dhanapalan, J.1. Writ Petition No. 36006 of 2007 has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent relating to Tender Notification, dated 29.10.2007, issued in Specification No. CE/MTPS/SE/P&A;/MM/AEE2/O.T. No. 577/2007-2008 and quash the same.2. Writ Petition No. 36013 of 2007 has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent relating to the Tender Notification, dated 06.11.2007, issued in Specification No. CE/MTPS/SE/P&A;/MM/AEE2/O.T. No. 584/2007-2008, and quash the same.3. Writ Petition No. 44 of 2008 has been filed, praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent, pertaining to the tender for Supply of Broad Gauge Railway Track Materials to Mettur Thermal Power Station, having reference Specification No. CE/MTPS/SE/P&A;/MM/AEE2/O.T. No. 591/2007-2008, dated 28th November, 2007, and quash the same in so far as Claus...
M. Pirai Choodi Vs. the Income Tax Officer
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: [2008]302ITR40(Mad)
P.D. Dinakaran, J.1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner has preferred the above writ appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 21.2.2007 made in Writ Petition No. 3247 of 2007, where the learned Judge refused to quash the assessment order dated 29.12.2006 for the assessment year 2004-2005 made under 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, on the ground that the writ petitioner has got an alternative remedy to prefer a statuary appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.2. It is general rule that it may not be proper to entertain the writ petitions when effective alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal is available vide Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Orissa 53 STC 315, Ashok Leyland Limited v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 105 STC 152 and State of Goa and Ors. v. Leuko Plast (India) Ltd. 105 STC 318. But, the above general rule is subject to exceptions as laid by the Apex Court in Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. : AIR2003SC2120 , where the Apex...
The Management of Proteck Circuits and Systems Private Limited Vs. Con ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)5MLJ585(NULL)
ORDERN. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.1. By consent of both sides, the writ petition itself was taken up for final disposal.2. Prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order passed by the first respondent in I.A. No. 15 of 2006 dated 19.2.2007 condoning the delay of 2372 days in preferring the application seeking payment of minimum wages, payable from 1.4.1997 to 31.3.2005.3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner Company is involved in the manufacture of Printing Machinary and CNC Lathes, for supply to HAL, Defence, Railways, Government of India and Tamil Nadu Press. There are about 368 employees including workers are working in the Company. The second respondent, claiming to be a Trade Union, which according to the petitioner, has less than 60 workmen, filed a petition before the first respondent under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, by raising a contention that the workers in the list annexed therein have received wages less than the minimum wages fixed under the Act by the appro...
D. Rajamma Vs. the Director of Social Welfare and the Registrar, Tamil ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-05-2008
Reported in: (2008)3MLJ1414
ORDERK. Chandru, J.1. Heard the arguments of Mr. S.M. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the first respondent and have perused the records.2. The writ petitioner was employed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife in Project I in Royapuram under the Social Welfare Department. She was charge-sheeted with a charge-memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules [for short, 'Rules']. The charge as against the petitioner was that she was having Telugu as her mother tongue and, therefore, she should have passed the language test, viz., Tamil, before the completion of her probation period, ie., within three years, viz., period of probation. It is stated that she could not pass the language test within five years and, therefore, the charges were made in terms of Rule 12(A)(b) of the General Rules of the Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Services. It is this charge memo which was u...
M. Senthil Kumar S/O T. Mani and J. Sivaganesh S/O Jothilingam Vs. Uni ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Feb-04-2008
Reported in: (2008)2MLJ973
P.K. Misra, J.1. W.P. No. 33524 of 2007 has been filed by a practising Advocate for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3, namely, the Union of India, Union Territory of Pondicherry and the Law Secretary of the Union Territory of Pondicherry to frame rules relating to appointment of District Judges and start the selection process according to law. Such writ petition was filed on 15.10,2007 and was admitted on 16.10.2007 by a learned single Judge of this Court. In the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2007, the prayer was for staying the selection process, wherein notice was directed to be issued on 16.10.20072. Subsequently, W.P. No. 35164 of 2007 was filed by another practising Advocate for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the very same respondents as well as the Registrar General, High Court, Madras, who was impleaded as fourth respondent, to frame rules for the Union Territory of Puducherry State Judicial State Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules in terms of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »